Chinese labour in the global economy

Prof. Andreas Bieler and I have been awarded a grant of £275k by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for a project on ‘Globalisation, national transformation and workers’ rights: an analysis of Chinese labour within the global economy’ (RES-062-23-2777; full project proposal). The project starts to run from 1 October 2011. On this blog, I will regularly provide a discussion of empirical findings related to this project.

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

In August 2016, Professor Andreas Bieler and I published an article 'Exploitation and Resistance: A Comparative Analysis of the Chinese cheap labour electronics and high-value added IT sectors' in the journal Globalisation. This article is the result of our observation, to compare IT manufacturing in Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta from 2011 to 2014. A detailed introduction of our paper can be seen in Prof. Bieler's blog: http://andreasbieler.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/super-exploitation-and-resistance.html

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Any popular movie
for instance Hunger Games, Star War or famous Harry Potter, has part I, part II and part III.In the case of this blog, it is not because
the receiving rate of the first blog was enormously high so I decided to write it
up again. It is, unfortunately because what I wrote on my blog on September 16,
2012 happened again roughly ten days ago in Southern part of China. On December
3, authorities detained 20
labour activists and five are still under criminal charges until now.

Four years ago,
grass-root labour organisations in Guangzhou and Shenzhen faced severe
suppression. Local labour NGOs’ offices have to be shut down for no reason,
unknown persons came to those local labour NGOs’ offices, smashing all the
office equipment and also asked staffs at the labour organization to leave the
office immediately. Under that difficult circumstance, I raised a question:
Whether the state, or the government should be the protector or in fact, is a
gangster to bully her own citizen?

Chinese grass-roots NGOs have always faced difficult
challenges. Since the summer of 2012, grass-roots labour NGOs have encountered
various obstacles. Some have been asked by their landlords to move out of the
offices they rented, with no reasons given. Some have had their offices
vandalized by unknown people for unknown reasons. Some organizers have been
assaulted by unknown people, again, without obvious reasons. The situation has
continued and as we saw, on December 6th of this year, nine labour NGO organizers
were arrested; three of them are still detained. The only unchanged factor is,
we still don't know the reason for their arrest/detention. One may ask, is it
important to know the reason? It is important because a 'legitimate' government
as the Chinese government always claims to be, should protect her citizens from
'unknown' harassers and defend their personal safety. We therefore wonder why
those labour NGO organizers – whose aim is to help workers better their working
conditions, thereby helping the society to have more balanced industrial
relations – are suffering such difficulties. As such, I do think the government
owes her citizens an explanation for the detention of the labour NGO
organizers. The ironic fact is, the labour NGO organizers are the very ones who
most need the government's protection (this part of comment is also on red balloon)

I’d like to expand more on my point about whether the
Chinese government can provide a justified reason to her citizens. Four years
ago, China was under President Hu’s governance, the emphasis was on maintaining
stability, therefore from the government’s perspective; those grass-root labour
organisations were possible threats to the social stability. However, back then
the government failed to explain that why, if the labour NGOs aim to help
workers at conflicts of industrial relations, could pose any possible threats
to the government. Four years later, as we saw that those grass-root labour
NGOs once again, suffered from the severe suppression. At this moment, China is
under President Xi’s leadership to realise the ‘China Dream’. A justified
explanation is still missing in this action of suppression of those labour
NGOs, unless, if we assume that those labour NGOs and the immense number of
Chinese workers, whom are the backbone of the society are not in part of ‘China
dream’. If that is the case, we must ask, if the ‘China dream’ is selective,
which groups could be included in the ‘China dream’?

Finally, I sincerely hope, that I won’t need to repeat
what I wrote here anymore, four years is a long time, and one would expect a
country to change her strategy to interact with her people and society after
such a long period of time. Global academic in the labour studies also launched
a joint
petition to the Chinese government to release those grass-root labour
organisation staffs,

I sincerely hope, in the years to come that China not
only to fulfil her global market dream under the ‘one belt-one road’ blueprint,
but also to respect her people, to support the bottom of the society,
otherwise, the ‘China dream’ will always be only a dream.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

This
is a joint effort to put this blog together by Jenny Chan, Adrian Budd, Kincaid and
also Camilla Royle from the International Socialism Journal Day school on 28
February 2015. More than 60 people attended the day school and this blog, aims
to trace back and also document what have been discussed during the day. Three
different themes are covered in the discussion, they are respectively, China’s
Political Economy and China in the world; Trade Unions and Class Struggle;
Umbrella Protests and New Movement for Democracy. They will be introduced in
the following sections.

In
the opening discussion about China’s Political Economy and the role of China in
the world, Jane Hardy and Adrian Budd argued that the spectacular economic growth of recent decades has
transformed China and had a major impact on the rest of the world. Asian
capitals in particular have taken advantage of China’s opening as a regional
economic centre. But economic transformation has important geo-political
consequences and poses strategic questions to China’s immediate neighbours and
the US, still the world’s major power.

They also argued that mainstream commentators often see a
paradox in China’s simultaneous economic rise and emergence as a geopolitical
challenge to US power (in the East and South China Seas, Indian Ocean, via the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, etc). But Marxist analysis of imperialism
(including Bukharin’s insight into the
inter-penetration of internationalised production and economic and political
nationalisation) overcomes this apparent paradox and sees the economics and
geo-politics of China’s rise as mutually inter-dependent aspects of global
capitalism’s competitive dynamic. They conclude that China’s military
modernisation and assertiveness, and US regional power and alliances (including
Obama’s ‘pivot’ to Asia), reinforce each other. The slaughter that motivated
Bukharin’s (and Lenin’s) critique of imperialism is not on the immediate
horizon, but competitive rivalries mean the danger of conflict is ever-present,
which in turn means that the world’s rulers continue to divert resources
towards destructive power and away from welfare and development. Capitalist
economics produces an equally destructive capitalist geo-politics.

The second discussion theme is Trade Unions and Class Struggle, covered by Jenny Chan and Tim Pringle.Jenny
Chan highlighted that China’s emergence as a global economic power could not
have occurred without the painstaking efforts of the successive generations of
production workers. What are the prospects for Chinese labour to strengthen its
associational power against the backdrop of privatization of state enterprises
and the emergence of rural migrant workers at the centre of a new working
class? At the key node of global supply base, workers from Foxconn, Honda, and other giant
manufacturers
leveraged their power to disrupt continuous work flow in just-in-time
production, winning partial victories. Through non-governmental organizations
and solidarity ties based on co-worker relationships, gender, locality, and/or
pre-existing social ties, aggrieved workers have come together at the
dormitory, workshop, or factory level to defend their rights and interests. In
response, the Chinese state has been struggling to maintain “social stability”
through more direct management and mediation of high-profile, large-scale
labour disputes. Local officials have skilfully developed a wide array of
“protest absorption” techniques to attempt to mute “rightful resistance.” The
immediate result is that, in many cases, workers’ individual grievances are
partially addressed and collective actions broken up. As China’s
leaders—including trade union officials—make extensive use of their
discretionary power to resolve labour conflicts, rather than institutionalizing
workers’ fundamental rights to freedom of association, it is unclear how long
this interventionist strategy will remain viable. What is clear is that as
capital moves, contentious labour relations are also shifting from coastal
cities to new sites of investment in inland provinces, creating possibilities
of stronger resistance and nurturance of community-based labour power in the
long run.

The
third timely discussion is about Umbrella Protests and New Movement for
Democracy, delivered by Vincent Sungand Sally Kincaid. Sally began the final
input of the day, by discussing the fact that since 2011 the Chinese state has
spent more money on internal security than on defence.The state attempts to airbrush the resistance
and subsequent repression of events of May/June 1989 out of history.Over 2 million people are employed to censor
electronic posts.The number of blocked
Weibo posts peaked on September 28th, as the Chinese state tried to prevent
mainlanders discussing the Occupy Hong Kong movement. Over 300 people were
arrested in China for posting solidarity messages.Eventually the Chinese state had to report
events in Hong Kong in order to condemn the umbrella movement.

There
has been a steady increase in the number of strikes in China, which has
accelerated since September. Sally also mentioned that China Labour Bulletin is a useful source for reported strikes but it
does not show the go slows or where workers attend work but refuse to
work.Sally indicated the contradiction
and tensions within Chinese society are becoming sharper.This is particularly true in the education
sector, where the children of migrant workers, do not have automatic access to
the schools in the cities where their parents work, which leaves them limited
and expensive choices. There are 61 million “left behind” children who live
with either one parent, or grandparents or other members of the family.Over 20 million children live with their parents
in the cities, if they can attend the state run schools they have to pay, but
they need to provide 5 different documents, or they have to attend migrant
schools which have a very precarious existence, or not attend school at all.

Finally
Sally summed up the last session, by reminding people that we should remember
the hypocrisy of our own ruling class.The tear gas used against the students had been manufactured in the
UK.She also emphasized that our job in
the west was to not only point out this hypocrisy, and build solidarity for those
in struggle, but to remember that China has a rich history of working class
struggle, so that we can help Chinese workers re-learn their own history.

Further news, please contact Camilla Royle and Alex Callinicos at International Socialism.

Saturday, 21 February 2015

A guest post by Prof. Andreas Bieler from school of politics and international relations, University of Nottingham on the talk of Dr. Florian Butollo (Jena University in Germany)'s talk at school of contemporary Chinese studies, University of Nottingham.

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

This is a guest post by Professor Andreas Bieler at school of politics and international relations, University of Nottingham. By concluding our cooperative project, 'Chinese labour in the global economy', Andreas contributed a list of key findings for our work in the past three years (from 2011-2014).

Sunday, 5 October 2014

On 19 September 2014, Apple launched the iPhone 6 globally. From the
long queue in front of Apple’s flagship store in Covent Garden in London, it is
obvious that the attraction of the iPhone
still grabs many people, despite rain or wind or whatever the weather.
Meanwhile, Sacom also issued a public announcement disclosing the slave
like working conditions of Chinese workers labouring to produce iPhone 6’s bigger
touch screen, and clearer camera resolution. Looking back, my blog of 1 October 2012, exactly two years ago, already discussed
the labour conditions of Apple’s main producer, Foxconn. The purpose of this blog is not to repeat what
Sacom researchers have observed, the conditions of slavery in China that lie
behind all the iproducts, but to look at the mentality of consumers. I would
argue that the iSlaves are not those workers struggling with poor conditions,
but those people waiting in front of the Apple shops every time a new product is
released.

It is difficult to avoid using sweatshop products nowadays, because
Foxconn (Apple’s biggest subcontractor in China) produces almost all the
components for not only Apple, but also Dell and Hewlett-Packard. It seems,
therefore, that no matter how hard we try, we will unavoidably use products
produced on an assembly line at a sweatshop somewhere in China. However, those
people who were waiting in front of the Apple shop for iPhone 6 are not just
into the normal technological setting. The ‘Apple fans’ are after every new
Apple product: they count the days until the next release, compare the
functions of every new product to the old one. They demand bigger touch screens,
clearer camera resolution, smarter phone settings. Would they care about those workers being
subject to harsher work pressure, longer working hours, lesser workplace
protection? I doubt it, and I think their action proved rather not.

For them, to have an iPhone 6 is important not only because the functionality
of iPhone is good, but, as one of my ‘Apple fans’ friend told me: it is like having a licence to be with
another group of people, it is an identity of being an information ‘have-more’.
You really feel different when you have an iPhone. I am not being critical of
my friend’s comment as he is a thorough ‘Apple fan’; however, there are millions
of people who think similarly to my friend. They don’t just buy the product. The
iPhone is ‘renovated’ all the time: not only iPhone 5, but also iPhone 5s, iPhone
5x, the push for all these changes not only coming from Apple, but also from
this enormous group of ‘Apple fans’ demanding quicker, bigger and better. Otherwise,
why would one have to change phone frequently if the iPhone is already of very
good quality?

More importantly, all Apple’s products are synchronized, as another
Apple-fan friend of mine patiently explained to me: This means the data on your Mac can be transferred to iPhone and iPad
and your music onto iPod. This is great since we are so busy so if everything
can be synchronized together, it is easier to manage our lives. From Bloomberg’s interview with Tim Cook,
the ultimate goal is to establish a Apple Payment system, so users will be able
to touch the screen of their iPhone or Apple Watch to initiate a payment.
Gradually, not only this, but also the whole electronic warehouse will be
controlled by iProducts. My friend who patiently explained to me the benefits
of all her electronic products being synchronized to the same tune didn’t
understand my question:Why do we want
to be synchronized by one system, that is the Apple system? If that is the
case, then who are the slaves of these iProducts? I don’t think workers in
China’s Foxconn factories will be able to be ‘enslaved’ by those iProducts,
simply because they don’t have the financial capacity to purchase the products
that they are making, an obvious example of alienation, from a Marxist perspective.
Here my opinion differs from Sacom’s: it
is actually not that easy to qualify as an iSlave. One at least has to have the
capacity to purchase the whole set of iProducts, regularly purchase new
products, and most crucially, willingly to submit control of one’s life to a
mega corporate system: Apple!